Tuesday, June 3, 2014


Illegal is defined in the Oxford dictionary as not allowed by the law. The Forestry Act (a) 1991 defines timber permit as a timber permit qranted under Section 73 or 75 of the Act. Section 73 (3) states that the effect of a timber permit is to authorize the holder to carry out the operation specified therein in the project area for the term and subject to the conditions specified therein and in accordance with the project statement, five year working plans and annual logging plans. Therefore, the legal logging under Papua New Guinea Forestry Act is when the timber permit holder carry out the operations in compliance of the terms and conditions of the timber Permit. The Non—Government Organization with their green agenda defines illegal logging as: “At its basic, illegal logging occurs when trees we cut, transported, brought or sold in violation of national laws”. Source.www.greenpeace.org.uk The logging operation in Papua New Guinea is very closely monitored by the SGS whom audit all logging operations and the exports thereof. In recent years the definition was widen to include unrealistic green agenda of sustainability, hence tainting all legal logging operations as illegal according to the newly invented sustainability definition. The classic unrealistic sustainability definition reads as follows: A new concept in environmental and human affairs was introduced with Brudtland Declaration of 1987: “Sustainable development is development that “meets the needs of the present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Implicit in this often–quoted definition is the idea that the natural environment faces stress and overexploitation and will not be able to indefinitely meet escalating human demands. By itself, the Brundtland definition is insufficient. “How does one define “needs,” as opposed to wants or even excessive luxury? Is a lowering of living standards acceptable? Is barely enough to eat and minimum shelter good enough? What about education and medical care? Does sustainability imply some equity in distribution of goods, or might an increasing gap between rich and poor meet sustainability test (if environmental and population stability are achieved)? Is ecosystem health important for itself, or it sustain humans”. The Brudtland Declaration suggest some answers. “Linking global inequity to environmental degradation, it calls for a decrease in consumption in the wealthy global north, together with development for the impoverished global south. The implicit problem here is that the wealthy are often protected from the environmental costs of lifestyles, while the poor often lack the means to care for their immediate environment”. Source: www.csa.com

No comments: